 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »
|
It's too bad that bitcoin allowed dedicated silicon (FPGA/ASIC) to participate. If they had adapted to prevent it there still would be large farms of CPU/GPU miners. But it would be a more level playing field and there would be more use of having that much computational power in play that could also be solving real problems and not just generating a lot of heat and having an overabundance of SHA256 brute force engines lying around.
But in reality it is almost impossible to create a proof-of-work mining algorythm that will forever remain ASIC-resistant so that point is moot I'm pretty sure someone will come up with a good solution. Ethereum has a couple approaches that have merit and one will go in to practice soon. https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/197/mining-faq-live-updateshttps://blog.ethereum.org/2014/06/19/mining/You have got to be joking. Ethereum was one of the biggest scams in the history of alt-coins. Hope you didn't get burned. Everything I have read and watched about what they are doing and the people involved leads me to believe the are 100% legit. I think their goals are ambitious and complex. Time will tell if they produce a viable decentralized crypto currency. Just calling them "one of the biggest scams in the history of alt-coins" with no basis is pointless FUD. If you are going to chime in, by all means enlighten us. |
|
|
|
So you agree that Bitcoin is good enough right now and all the other alternatives are still only "in theory" Completely agree. |
|
|
|
It's too bad that bitcoin allowed dedicated silicon (FPGA/ASIC) to participate. If they had adapted to prevent it there still would be large farms of CPU/GPU miners. But it would be a more level playing field and there would be more use of having that much computational power in play that could also be solving real problems and not just generating a lot of heat and having an overabundance of SHA256 brute force engines lying around.
But in reality it is almost impossible to create a proof-of-work mining algorythm that will forever remain ASIC-resistant so that point is moot I'm pretty sure someone will come up with a good solution. Ethereum has a couple approaches that have merit and one will go in to practice soon. https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/197/mining-faq-live-updateshttps://blog.ethereum.org/2014/06/19/mining/ |
|
|
|
You do know that likely the biggest mining company out there, BitFury, sells industrial mining gears to other miners. I would say this qualifies as "enabling others to compete with them". They actually offer the service of building data centers and supplying mining equipment for mining operations i.e. other Bitcoin miners.
In fact, every mining companies in the ecosystem probably mine Bitcoins themselves AND sell mining gear. So your point really doesn't make any sense, at all.
So if a mining company makes a rig that is projected to generate $10,000 worth of bitcoin what do you think they will sell it for? A. $8,000 basically giving someone $2,000 because they just love people and support bitcoin. B. $10,000 because it allows them to get the $10K right away upfront locking in maximum profit right away. (This leaves the buyer $0 in profit because they paid what it was going to produce) C. $12,000 Suckers! Person buying looses $2,000 because they were overly optimistic about something. The answer is C or some form of it. KNC characterized their shift to just mining themselves as more honest. unfortunately, most of the naysayers would choose option A, as they believe that mining companies are some of the biggest supporters of BTC. What's wrong with option A? As the manuf. you sell for $8,000 today or try to mine the $10,000 over the next five months, but really you have to mine more than $10,000 because you have to pay for power and somewhere to put the machine. That's not evem considering the possibility that the exchange rate may go to shit. While you might actually earn more BTC than it would have net you if you had just sold the unit outright, the shit exch. rate means you actually lost money relative to the $8,00 you could have made from the get go. Further that's not even considering the opportunity cost by having your return tied up in a miner which has to earn it back over time. But, yes. C I do believe that many ASIC/rig makers adopted a variant of A. There is a discount that should be given to lock in 80% of what you think its worth up front and remove the uncertainty. They don't have perfect insight in to where the price is going either. They have lots of capital in play and I'm sure spend a tremendous amount of time obsessing about their profitability projections and trying to stay competitive with other makers. As mining has evolved over the past year or so you can see it shifting much more to C and then to D: D. Not for sale. We have enough capital now to grow on our own. We didn't expect the price was going to fall so much and leave our customers so far under water. Sorry. We decided we can do better on our own. The real production costs are not that high now that we are up and running. Having customers or limited share holders does not provide enough benefit to outweigh the issues associated with them. I'm sure some manufacturers are good and some are evil greedy bastards. In the end it doesn't matter and they are all competing as businesses do. The normal evolution of business is consolidation to get scale. Capitalism is a great motivator and makes things move very fast. But, its eventual outcome often is monopoly which is a horrible end result. If market forces don't change the fundamentals to knock out monopolies then enter government and regulation to break it up and restart the cycle. At least that is what should happen. More and more you see business subvert the government to prevent the regulation and break up of their monopoly. History shows that will lead to public uprising and revolt. A horrible prospect to envision happening in modern times. Bitcoin was intended to be more egalitarian, liberating, and peer-to-peer. More like bittorrent, seti@home, folding@home, etc. It sprung out of those those ideas. Satoshi wasn't trying to launch a get rich quick scheme for himself or others. Quite the opposite. It's too bad that bitcoin allowed dedicated silicon (FPGA/ASIC) to participate. If they had adapted to prevent it there still would be large farms of CPU/GPU miners. But it would be a more level playing field and there would be more use of having that much computational power in play that could also be solving real problems and not just generating a lot of heat and having an overabundance of SHA256 brute force engines lying around. |
|
|
|
Have you not figured it out yet bro? That is because they have a financial gain in making suckers believe that. Bitcoin isn't all its cracked up to be. I have traded thousands of coins and spent countless hours studying. Its bullshit. Brg444 is the kinda retard that laps it up. Its not about real change but personal gain.
It is/was about real change but there was too much money in play and it drifted off its intended path. It's still possible that bitcoin could get back on track but its looking more and more likely that it will be superseded by a 2.0 successor. |
|
|
|
You do know that likely the biggest mining company out there, BitFury, sells industrial mining gears to other miners. I would say this qualifies as "enabling others to compete with them". They actually offer the service of building data centers and supplying mining equipment for mining operations i.e. other Bitcoin miners.
In fact, every mining companies in the ecosystem probably mine Bitcoins themselves AND sell mining gear. So your point really doesn't make any sense, at all.
So if a mining company makes a rig that is projected to generate $10,000 worth of bitcoin what do you think they will sell it for? A. $8,000 basically giving someone $2,000 because they just love people and support bitcoin. B. $10,000 because it allows them to get the $10K right away upfront locking in maximum profit right away. (This leaves the buyer $0 in profit because they paid what it was going to produce) C. $12,000 Suckers! Person buying looses $2,000 because they were overly optimistic about something. The answer is C or some form of it. KNC characterized their shift to just mining themselves as more honest. |
|
|
|
And simple greed. Make as much as you can as quickly as you can. You cant really blame them. They are fighting tooth and nail with other ASIC/rig makers. Its not like they have been in business for a hundred years or looking to go another hundred. The root of the problem is bitcoin core development failed to evolve and keep it P2P and the consequences will be centralization and open the doors to the many downfalls that p2p decentralization solves. Those who argue that we are not headed to increased centralization sound more and more like denialist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism |
|
|
|
I read and study the uses of bitcoin and the adaptation and everyday it is being incorporated by businesses and used by more people.
It is still going down and will quite possibly fall back to pennies because in reality it costs money to make and like the US Dollar has no intrinsic value.
When it starts costing more to create it than you can sell it for it is over I wonder how much in electrical costs one bit coin is.
I think break even is around $200 per coin. Not sure, I quit mining like most months ago. My prediction. Bitcoin price will oscillate near break even for mining. It will shake more and more out until we are left with just 1 or 2 chip/rig makers. I would guess break even for mining might get to around $100 per coin. Not the peer-to-peer network needed to make bitcoin viable. |
|
|
|
Some have argued that they were never stolen and Karpeles is hiding them. My belief is they were stolen. The last official number was 650,000. (850,000 MIA minus the 200,000 they found after closing down Mtgox)
And if they were stolen, when were they stolen? I would think some time in 2011, if at all. I was fortunate enough to move out of Mtgox prior to the collapse. If you interacted with Mtgox in the 2 or 3 months prior to the end it was clear things were not ok there. My opinion is they were stolen much earlier as well. I think willybot was an attempt to recoup the loss. I think we would have had a bubble anyway and willybot was a catalyst that pushed it much higher/faster. The bubble and collapse of Mtgox seriously damaged bitcoin in my opinion. As has the centralization of mining... |
|
|
|
|
Why are you dragging your equally clueless wife in to this?
|
|
|
|
A lot of people attribute these spikes as intentional market manipulations. Couldn't they just be some of the 650,000 MtGox coins that were stolen?
Most of their "cold storage" addresses are known, why not check yourself? Nobody even knows how many coins were stolen, if any. That was just the excuse Karpeles gave. Some have argued that they were never stolen and Karpeles is hiding them. My belief is they were stolen. The last official number was 650,000. (850,000 MIA minus the 200,000 they found after closing down Mtgox) |
|
|
|
|
A lot of people attribute these spikes as intentional market manipulations. Couldn't they just be some of the 650,000 MtGox coins that were stolen?
|
|
|
|
Big players making farms. Sure. Everyone can see that. Specialized silicon that would lead to 1 or 2 large players controlling bitcoin. No.
The intent was a decentralized peer-to-peer system. Failing to adapt the core to that end put bitcoin on a path of greater and greater consolidation that will eventually make it vulnerable to a number things and non-viable. It will be replaced by a version 2.0 that is peer-to-peer decentralized and probably has other fundamental innovations.
Remember there is an economic incentive for players not to collude and respect decentralization of the system. Moreover you are also underestimating the prospects of commoditized ASICs and development of p2p mining pools. Good diagram. Really helps to clearly understand your perspective and whats guiding it. Couple thoughts that I think may materially impact the degree of centralization differently than what you drew. 1. Why would a company making the best (most efficient cost per hash) sell that for less than what they would make mining themselves? The trend so far has been get public support to raise start up capital. If successful phase out public to maximize profits. 2. Assuming the best hardware is commoditzed and sold to the public; mining would still centralize around cheap power and cooling. Anyone paying $0.15+ in a hot climate is not going to be viable against someone paying $0.05 or even lower if subsidized like it is in some countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing |
|
|
|
I believe he means that mining has become a job of a few entities (mining farms). Not exactly Satoshi's idea about decentralized peer-to-peer systems.
If you think Satoshi didn't envision mining farms then you are underestimating him Big players making farms. Sure. Everyone can see that. Specialized silicon that would lead to 1 or 2 large players controlling bitcoin. No. The intent was a decentralized peer-to-peer system. Failing to adapt the core to that end put bitcoin on a path of greater and greater consolidation that will eventually make it vulnerable to a number things and non-viable. It will be replaced by a version 2.0 that is peer-to-peer decentralized and probably has other fundamental innovations. |
|
|
|
I believe he means that mining has become a job of a few entities (mining farms). Not exactly Satoshi's idea about decentralized peer-to-peer systems.
yes |
|
|
|
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Its only a matter of time before bitcoin is replaced by something that is decentralized and peer-to-peer. Greed and lack of competent leadership are the root causes for this version 1.0 failure.
Gavin is very competent. A fork is in the works, remember? I was surprised that nothing was done to thwart FPGAs. And look where we are now. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
Its only a matter of time before bitcoin is replaced by something that is decentralized and peer-to-peer. Greed and lack of competent leadership are the root causes for this version 1.0 failure.
|
|
|
|
It will hit 250 by the end of the month im sure.
Just curious. How do you pronounce your forum name? |
|
|
|
|
Falling = We will continue to go down. No possible proof that is true.
Rising = We have hit bottom and will only go up from here. No possible proof that is true.
Rising says = Falling is paid to spread FUD so someone else can profit from it.
Rising is = Spreading irrational exuberance in hopes of driving the price up for his own benefit.
There is no difference other than the direction each side is cheer leading.
Selectively sanitizing the forum of negative speculations about bitcoin does not strengthen bitcoin or the community; it weakens it.
|
|
|
|
oh boo hoo, falllling and all his retard alt accounts are banned, along with anyone else who has claimed we'll be dropping in price from this point. We've clearly hit the bottom, and fallling is a paid troll whose only job in life is to spread FUD and bring the price down so his paymaster can buy in cheaper. We're better off without him or any of the other negative nancys.
There is so much wrong with this... But there is no point in elaborating as it wont be understood. |
|
|
|
|
